Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 April 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 29 May 1 >

April 30[edit]

Professional boxing record templates[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Floyd Mayweather Jr. professional record (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Adrien Broner professional record (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Timothy Bradley professional record (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These templates are all used on only one page and have little prospect of being used on another page. Don King's hair (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, take in consideration user:don king's hair uses his own opinion based on his emotions over actually facts. He's nominating the templates for deletion because I created them. And I made them to stop sock puppets (they don't know how to access templates). He has no reason to have them deleted but only that it has something to do with me. If it had been anyone else he would not have done this. Those templates have been around for a couple months now then all of a sudden he nominates "all" of them for deletion?? --2Nyce (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • substitute and delete, single use templates which should be either (a) turned into stand alone list articles, or (b) merged with the parent article. either way these should be deleted. Frietjes (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment see this discussion for precedent. Frietjes (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Expand template[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Expand template (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per previous discussions of the other expand templates which are now deleted. I also don't see a use for asking for expanding in a template. Best to use the talk page for asking that. Garion96 (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unused, unnecessary. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - While I do not necessarily disagree with deleting the template, how will people know that there is discussion on the talk page about expanding the template? {{Expand template}} may be similar to {{Outdated}}. Also, is there any reason why {{Rozz Williams}} has not yet been relisted or otherwise dispositioned? --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment mind linking to those EXPAND discussions? -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we really have a template for expanding templates? Strongest possible delete per unnecessary templateception. Ryan Vesey 05:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm curious as to what the author's rationale was for creating it. It's only three days old. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • i created because some templates may need expand because they show a little information the reason I created it was so that people would put it ether on the /doc or put it on the template it self - I would like to keep it open and not deleted Paladox2014 (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a template needs expansion, someone should expand the template; they shouldn't add this tag. The information required for a template is simple enough that no editor should ever come across a template that appears to need expansion where that editor doesn't know how to expand it. If a template is based on statistics and it needs updating, we have {{outdated}}. I see that you are working on some other expand templates. Please don't move them out of your sandbox. We don't need them and we just got rid of them. The expand article one will qualify for speedy deletion under Criteria G4. Ryan Vesey 17:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • if you delete please then could we reopen the template expand by adding codes to detect if it is a template article or project page please so that we doint need to choose incomplete fro article but we would keep template expand language Paladox2014 (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What's next? A template for expanding templates about template expansion? Canuck89 (talk to me) 02:40, May 6, 2013 (UTC)
ok you can delete it but can we create a template which has all the function of all the templates exept template expand language please so that it can be under one template and that would be template expand 90.200.72.155 (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see little benefit from this. Templates aren't supposed to be arbitrarily expanded, but should contain the exact amount of required navigation/information as decided by consensus. Otherwise, this is the same case as was with expand article one -- potentially every template is expandable. It's one thing when a template is out of date of missing new/periodic data, but it's another to request arbitrary expansion. A use case here being Template:Infobox video game is a good example of how not to use it for a long-standing template that has had every field discussed plenty and where repeat proposals are posted regularly (in fact, fields are removed because it is already bloated). Concrete proposals should be formed on the talk pages, and a generic "expansion needed" message is not helpful, especially since it would rarely be obvious what exactly needs adding. I feel the intention of this template is very subjective about what templates should contain and not actually based on common practice on Wikipedia. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Library resources box[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. While I've seriously considered that the fact that I'm a librarian could constitute a WP:COI, this discussion is past its regular listing period, and there's clear consensus to keep regardless of what I think. And I have no specific personal or professional connections related to the templates in question. --BDD (talk) 23:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Library resources box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Library resources about (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Library resources by (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Library link about (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Library link by (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Online books about (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Online books by (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These templates, which have been spammed over many many pages in recent months, exist only to provide links to search results (in violation of WP:ELNO#EL9) and to resources that are otherwise not directly related to the subject of the article, specifically links to pages including external links to WorldCat and other library databases (in violation of WP:ELNO#EL13). In some cases (e.g., [1]) the search links actually contain no hits for the keyword. External links in Wikipedia must be clearly and directly relevant to the subject of the article, and should not be to search results or similar databases. If the individuals responsible for promulgating this template would like to add direct links to the (free) online books, then that would be more consistent with our guidelines on external links. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The ELNO restrictions refer to sites - a library catalogue is not site per se, nor is it a search engine. Providing links to holdings of local, physical libraries is of immense value to both the reader, and to Wikipedians looking to improve the article through reliable sources. The template should of course only be added to pages where it provides results. The Interior (Talk) 20:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The developer of this template is working with Wikimedia Labs to further refine it, and host it on WM servers. Let's give it a bit of time to develop before coinsigning it to the trash bin. The Interior (Talk) 20:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Such an experiment should be developed in user space, not applied to many articles. Once ready, a centralised discussion should be held before deployment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Whatever happened to WP:BOLD? The template ins't damaging pages or wrecking markup. The Interior (Talk) 22:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is now, but only because someone has TfD'd them. Take a look at Anne Lamott, for example. It was fine before the TfD; nice and clean.
          • BOLD doesn't refer to applying a new concept to hundreds (thousands?) of pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Let's take Anne Lamott as an example. Four lines in the Bibliography (not the external links where they belong), thereby cluttering up the layout. And what do you get for it? Click on the links and there is a list of libraries, none within a 200 miles of here, some of which work. Doesn't the oclc card in the reference list work better? Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or userfy. Userfy and restrict to a few pages for testing, until there is a stable version(s) ready for consultation, and there is widespread consensus on whether and how to deploy it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Point of clarification: There is in fact stable code for the forwarding service; the latest version of the main source code is available for inspection on Github at [2]. There's also full implementation, with slightly older source code, on Wikimedia Labs' servers; I'm awaiting policy approval from WM to enable IP-based "route me straight to the catalog of the library where I'm located now" functionality there and switch the template links to go through Wikimedia. Other than that, the templates are stable, with the exception of the box template that Chris Cunningham (user:Thumperward) has modified pending migration of the forwarding service onto Wikimedia. JohnMarkOckerbloom (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with User:The Interior, this template is very valuable. Perhaps the articles that it is added to need to be chosen more carefully, but bare in mind that many of the libraries it can link to are large research libraries. If applied carefully, this template can point readers directly to relevant resources, and I don't think it is in violation of the ELNO restrictions. Lawsonstu (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the author of the templates intended them to be a resource for our readers by providing them with a link to related books at their local library. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-03-18/Interview#A new platform and our article on the author at John Mark Ockerbloom. BTW, I've notified the author of this discussion. 64.40.54.93 (talk) 02:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per The Interior. Ryan Vesey 02:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's an ongoing discussion on the template talk regarding the future of these templates: at present, it looks as though the plan is for them to evolve into a landing page (similar to that used for ISBNs) which provides all of the links that the templates do. WMF have expressed interest in helping out. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The nominator is correct that these templates are in violation of existing Wikipedia policy. However, this project was featured in The Signpost and may have backing from developers at the Wikimedia Foundation. I definitely think that the project needs to be much better documented and probably go through an RfC, but assuming that the project is proceeding and in process of conforming to community guidelines, I think that the deletion discussion about these templates should be postponed a bit. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per User:The Interior. -- kosboot (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but reduce the number of pages its on- Though I agree with and support the development of the tools justified by other here, and understand the importance of having pages to demo the tool from so as to have traffic to test the subsequent tool with, it seems that the templates are on an unusually larger number of places. Per Andy Mabbett, almost two thousand pages have poor external links because of the template, and that reflects poorly on the quality of Wikipedia's external linking. Though I understand lesser pages may not create the critical mass needed to beta all elements of the tool, it seems that the functionality hasn't reached it's desired end goal anyway, so still only needs a trickle to truly Alpha, Sadads (talk) 13:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Interior. Bennylin (talk) 13:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the author of the templates, I don't know if my own Keep vote counts, but it may be also worth mentioning, besides the Signpost article above, the favorable coverage elsewhere (see, e.g. Boing Boing's ("Wikipedia and Libraries: A Match Made in Heaven", as well as discussions in various library blogs and social media.) It sounds like much of the objection to the templates is how they're currently being used on some pages, rather than the link-providing templates themselves. (Links out to library catalog searches are nothing new in Wikipedia, as seen not only in the Book Sources services but also in the previously-existing links to Worldcat listings "by and about" many Wikipedia article subjects.) I'd be happy to contribute more documentation and instruction on the templates to help Wikipedia editors place them appropriately per Wikipedia conventions. (I've placed very few myself.) As mentioned above, I'm also working with Wikimedia staff to move the forwarding service onto Wikimedia servers, and would be happy to consider suggestions on how to make the links to libraries more useful. JohnMarkOckerbloom (talk) 13:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not only do these have value for readers of Wikipedia (and heck might even encourage students to find the kind of resources they should use for their schoolwork) it is of value to Wikipedia as well. It provides a systematic way to connect what Wikipedia is doing to more traditional sources of information and can lead to more libraries working with us.Thelmadatter (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and greatly increase their usage. We should have these links on most or all WP pages where viable library resources are likely (which is probably every general article regardless of subject, and specific articles in the arts, humanities, social science, and sciences. (essentially everything other than the sort of popular culture , sports, and organization topics where formal resources in libraries are not very likely). The purpose of these is to guide users to information from available resources in a NPOV manner, a key function of an encyclopedia. the system is currently incomplete, and there are a large number of possible ways to develop it, which I have explored in a preliminary way with the author. EL policy is meant to be interpreted flexible--I can think of times we've need to override almost every one of the EL restrictions.They are mean to eliminate harmful or useless links, not good one. (BTW, the German WP , which is superior to the enWP in many aspects of quality and referencing, routinely uses query links for references in author bibliographies. We might want to reconsider this section of our rule; I've done hundreds of these lists, for what is actually better done by a query in WorldCat. ) DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • MUST rename - just one of many e-library -search - resources available like this. We are going to see lots and lots of these links if this one is allowed - so lets name it right - naming it after the school. Moxy (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moxy, please look into these templates a bit closer. The idea is not to provide links to a single e-library. I'm disappointed that you've removed them from all Canadian topics without investigating them in detail. They are designed to provide holdings information from many, many libraries, and, if you send the template designer your library's details, your own local public and university libraries. The Interior (Talk) 15:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree its a great resource - but in no way unique. The name should be more specific. As for the removal of the links in some Canadian articles - like this for Banff National Park and this for Maple syrup..... I see them as useless. As I mentioned on the templates talk page - great care has to be made in the deployment of ANY template on mass. I spend lots of time helping build bibliographies and understand there importance - but all needs to be done with care. Moxy (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're still only looking at the Online Books component. Try the Banff search through the Template:Library resources about (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) link. The Interior (Talk) 19:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Got to be better cant have some useful and useless links together. Again must be done better and with more care....if a links goes nowhere then have a parameter to suppress certain links. Adding a generic template that will contain links to nothing just because a few other links may or may not work is not the proper way this should be done.Moxy (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the template documentation? The "online books" links don't appear *unless* you set a parameter-- that is, by default only the library links, and not the online books link, are present. The documentation also tells editors considering this parameter to check to see if there *are* any relevant online books. It looks like in the example you cite, the editor used the "onlinebooks=yes" parameter without checking. If you or any other editor encounter such a template instantiation with a online books link that goes nowhere useful, I highly recommend editing the page to remove that parameter (or change its value to "no"). JohnMarkOckerbloom (talk) 02:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Note for later readers: While waiting for this discussion to resolve, I've added books under "Banff National Park" and "Maple syrup" to the Online Books Page, so they now look different from the "no-hits" results that particular library showed on the links above when the above comments were made.) JohnMarkOckerbloom (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These are in fact unique resources, though not the unique way of getting to them. The books that one will find and the articles on the databases are unique. The idea behind these templates is that for most purposes they are the most convenient way of getting to them. I have, for example, for my own use set up a rather elaborate set of bookmarks to accomplish the same thing, that now I will not need to maintain. They aren't perfect--I have some idea for improving them, and so does John. It is inherent in the nature of linking to library resources that in some cases nothing useful will be found--if only because the useful ones have already been added. Customizing these for each article is an extremely difficult job,as we have well over a million applicable article  I look forward to specializing them for various types of subject, but that's a later stage in development. This is really a different sort of thing than our traditional external links, and shouldn't be looked on the same way. There are several uses of an encyclopedia, but the classic one is for starting research, and there are two aspects to this--providing enough of an orientation to help people figure out the terminology and the structure of the field and the possible approaches, and guiding them to further resources. We have bee doing a fairly poor job of this, because for all but an exceptional few thousand articles, the list of links and further reading and references are all of them very crudely selected. This is the best way of supplementing them.
I would beware of removing links that i personally thought of as useless and other people find useful. When I see an article with inadequate references, I normally add to them, not replace them, unless they are actually misleading. We do not need another thing to fight about by being too particular on an article by article basis, for this will rapidly devolve into an additional level meta fight, similar to the arguments over punctuation of title words.
I am not sure everyone realizes it, but designing linking like this is very difficult. I've been around since the beginning of electronic resource in libraries, trying to find ways to help people access them. Hundreds of people have put decades of work into developing the existing more or less standardized library data access infrastructure , bringing it up to a point that a project like John's can be even contemplated. I do not hesitate to say we will be able to improve this; I also do not hesitate to say that what he has done is the best currently available. We should use it as fully as possible until we improve on it. I know little anyone has done in WP the last year or so that will have a greater positive impact on usability--the only competitors in importance is is the visual editor, and wikidata, and these have had a much longer and more troubled development history. DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Discuss, & Modify. Yes, the there may be technical violations of WP:ELNO#EL9 & WP:ELNO#EL13, but I think that with some knowledgeable coding, this could well be alleviated. These templates may have needed to spend some more time ripening before consumption, but I think that they have great potential to substatially benefit en.wikipedia.
Also, I wanted to ask the deletion nominator just what is the objection with linking to WorldCat. After all that is what the citation paramater oclc is all about, & how id={{OCLC|||}} works. Are you saying that we cannot even link to a list of the editions of a book title in WorldCat? Peaceray (talk) 05:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I've not much to add to the words of the other Keep !votes above, except to say that if these are violations of WP:ELNO, they're clearly not what that guideline was intended to prevent. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment (as nominator, and in reply to various queries above). If the project of incorporating links to external library resources gets the imprimatur of the foundation, then there should be an RfC about whether and how to incorporate these links into our articles. This is how large-scale changes like this are supposed to happen on Wikipedia, not by apparent stealth of night deployment without a wide community discussion. There is not even consensus here about the specific aims or scope of deploying the templates. As I stated in my rationale, I do not believe that these templates are consistent with our current guidelines. It could be that this is just because there is a gap in our guidelines that needs to be filled, through community discussion and consensus. But I think this discussion should at the very least happen before widespread deployment of the templates. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with an RfC I mentioned this more than a month ago at the template's talk page, but I'll repeat it here for others. I will be starting an RfC once the service is running on WMFLabs servers. BTW, I agree with DGG's May 3rd comment above. I think this has the potential to be very beneficial to our readers. 64.40.54.162 (talk) 02:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I do not read WP:ELNO#EL9 as an outright ban on all external links to search results pages, since the guideline states only that one should "generally avoid providing external links". Even if this guideline is applicable, I'd say this is a good case for applying WP:IAR (which I do not cite lightly). As an educator, I support these templates as they may help readers to access offline resources and dispel the misconception that all that one needs to know can be found on the Internet. Also, I see the templates as similar to our ISBN magic link. I'm not sure, though, why there is a need to have so many separate templates. Can their functionality not be combined into one template? — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with a recommendation that they go at the bottom of the page, so that they are clearly "see also" links instead of interrupting the article's flow. Jonesey95 (talk) 03:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as I think nominator's interpretation of ELNO is mistaken (as per Lankiveil). #9 would seem to mean one shouldn't add a link to google.com/search?q=SUBJECT (a search results page for the article subject); this template is quite different. #13 refers to sites that are indirectly related; again, this does not seem to apply to this template. WP:EL is a guideline "best treated with common sense". --LEKI (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This template looks terrible. It's not a reason to delete, but please fix it up. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the sooner the tags come off the templates, the sooner they can go back to looking reasonable. (Because some of the lower-level templates called by the higher-level templates also got tagged TfD, the higher-level templates meant for most editorial uses now generate multiple TfD warning notifications.) It looks to me like recent discussion here seems to be converging on Keep but to follow up with an RfC. (I still don't have an ETA on when I can get 100% functionality on a WM Labs implementation, but I'm willing to move the service over as soon as the TfD tags come off if that helps move things forward more expeditiously. The only feature currently missing from the WM Labs-based service is automatic IP-based library forwarding without needing to register a library preference, but students on the currently-affected campuses are going on break now anyway... :-) Can anyone enlighten me on how and when decisions get made to close the TfD discussion and remove the corresponding template tags? JohnMarkOckerbloom (talk) 13:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
John, TfD discussions are open for a week, so this one is due to be closed shortly. An admin will come by, gauge what the consensus is, and close it accordingly. The Interior (Talk) 13:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the only problem with it. It is not doing the job it is supposed to do, and clearly needs a lot of work before it can be rolled out. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a useful tool to promote the improvement of articles in the encyclopedia. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and develop a styleguide and usage parameters. As an educator and university librarian, this template has tremendous value. I also don't see that this template violates WP:ELNO. Richardjames444 (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with what was said by Thelmadatter, The Interior, Lawsonstu, Smuconlaw and DGG (except to "greatly increase usage" now). Richardjames444 suggestion to develop a styleguide and usage parameters is a good one. --Atlasowa (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to participate/collaborate on such, if it comes to that.Richardjames444 (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep likely to lead to better research, also the ELNO objection seems overblown. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As usual I am the lone voice fighting against the stream, but this is just one more example of Wikipedia editors thinking that they can agree by consensus to utterly ignore our policies. The policy quoted by user Sławomir Biały quite clearly says that editors should, "generally avoid providing external links to... Any search results pages, such as links to individual website searches, search engines, search aggregators, or RSS feeds." Not one of the editors voting to keep these templates has given any clear rationale for completely ignoring the policy. If you think the policy itself is wrong then you should be amending the policy first, then you can have templates that link to external databases, catalogues and libraries. Doing it the other way round by ignoring the policy and doing whatever you want results in a host of policies that everyone ignores because they can always cite endless examples of the policy being ignored, and that means that no one pays any notice to any of the policies and the whole thing ends up being a free for all with no order rationale or reason to it. If you cannot give a clear reason why this case should be a specific and well-defined exception to the policy then you should not be voting to keep these templates that, in their current iteration, add no value whatsoever to any of the hundreds of articles on which I have seen them. Not one of them returns a result, and that is the very best reason for not using them. Cottonshirtτ 16:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure if you read my original comment above but WP:EL is a guideline, not a policy. As the policy about guidelines states "occasional exceptions may apply". --LEKI (talk) 22:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Generally avoid" in ELNO does not mean "avoid without any exceptions whatsoever". The note at the top of WP:EL states clearly that the guideline is "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". As I mentioned in my earlier comment, even if the template is thought to violate ELNO (which I doubt), this is in my view an appropriate situation for the application of "WP:IAR" which is policy and not merely a guideline: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Digiclockdate[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Speedy delete per G7, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Digiclockdate (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template does not work correctly |Glenzo999| 17:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:High School Club Challenge League[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:High School Club Challenge League (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All seasons have been redirected to main article and no teams have independent articles, thus there is no navigation aid. C679 10:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:FC Vorskla Poltava Reserve squad[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FC Vorskla Poltava Reserve squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template related to redirect page. Alex (talk) 00:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:FC Shakhtar Donetsk Reserves squad[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FC Shakhtar Donetsk Reserves squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template related to redirect page. Alex (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_30&oldid=1142562854"